Seconding all this. And I'd like to add that "rocket stage crashing back to Earth uncontrolled" is the standard practice for every orbital rocket not named Falcon 9. And that this flight was this individual rocket's 23rd.
Also, calling this a crash is pretty misleading. The rocket did land on the uncrewed barge used as a landing platform out in the Atlantic ocean. The problem is that one of the legs collapsed and it tipped over. The residual vapors in the propellant tanks mixed and went boom. This is the aerospace equivalent of a 50-year-old cargo ship springing a leak while moored at a dock in shallow water. It's old hardware that failed at the least-concerning moment possible.
The space shuttle orbiters, engines and solid boosters have similar numbers, and similarly high maintenance costs. Very much a ship of Theseus question.
The space shuttles were different vehicles altogether, they needed three disposable parts to get to space. The SRB and the main tank were discarded after each use, they needed to be built from scratch every time.
It's not comparable to what Falcon can do, which is drop a payload in space, come back and fly again after a quick routine check and a refuel.
I love the space shuttle but it was a very different vehicle.
Seconding all this. And I'd like to add that "rocket stage crashing back to Earth uncontrolled" is the standard practice for every orbital rocket not named Falcon 9. And that this flight was this individual rocket's 23rd.
Also, calling this a crash is pretty misleading. The rocket did land on the uncrewed barge used as a landing platform out in the Atlantic ocean. The problem is that one of the legs collapsed and it tipped over. The residual vapors in the propellant tanks mixed and went boom. This is the aerospace equivalent of a 50-year-old cargo ship springing a leak while moored at a dock in shallow water. It's old hardware that failed at the least-concerning moment possible.
23 flights for a single rocket booster is absolutely mad. 30 years ago you'd have been called a madman for even suggesting it.
The space shuttle orbiters, engines and solid boosters have similar numbers, and similarly high maintenance costs. Very much a ship of Theseus question.
The space shuttles were different vehicles altogether, they needed three disposable parts to get to space. The SRB and the main tank were discarded after each use, they needed to be built from scratch every time.
It's not comparable to what Falcon can do, which is drop a payload in space, come back and fly again after a quick routine check and a refuel.
I love the space shuttle but it was a very different vehicle.
The srbs were recovered and reused. It was utterly ridiculous.
And the most expensive and complicated bits of the rocket, the SMEs and the Orbiter itself, were reused.
The only bit not reused was the main tank which was relatively simple in comparison to the other components
Oh yeah you're right, I read that a few years ago and didn't question it as it made sense given the cost of each shuttle launch. Thanks for the info!
deleted by creator